Kerala High Court
Suresh Kumar.M vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 17 June, 2008
Author: V.Giri
Bench: V.Giri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16255 of 2008(I)
1. SURESH KUMAR.M., PUTHUVELIKALAM,
... Petitioner
2. ISSUDHEEN.A., SHABNAM, VANOOR ROAD,
3. SASEENDRAN.N., ANTHAZHI (SANTHIDHAN),
4. KRISHNAKUMAR.K., PADINJARE HOUSE,
5. SUHAIR.S., AL AMEEN, T.B.ROAD,
6. RAMESH.M., S/O.MURUKAN.C., KUNNATH
7. SATHEESH KUMAR.M., KARAMPADAM HOUSE,
8. MANOJ.A., ARANGATTUPARAMBU HOUSE,
9. APPUKUTTAN.C., CHALUMPULLY, THADAKKAD,
10. NAZEER.A., KOKKERNY HOUSE,
Vs
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :17/06/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C).No.16255 of 2008 I
-------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are applicants for the post of Third Grade Overseer/Tracer in the department of Public Works and Irrigation. The qualifications prescribed are as follows:
(i) Pass in SSLC examination or its equivalent qualification and
(ii) Must possess any one of the qualifications mentioned below:
(a) Lower Grade Drawing Group Certificate KGTE or equivalent.
(b) Second Grade Certificate secured by Draftsmen (Civil) Trainees under T.T. Scheme, College of Engineering or under Industria;
Training Centre conducted by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, after a course of 18 months.
(c) Building Drawing and Estimating (Higher or Lower) KGTE or equivalent and any two of the other Civil Engineering Subjects under KGTE or equivalent.
W.P.(C).NO.16255/08
:: 2 ::
(d) Diploma in Civil Engineering (2 years course) of the Women's Polytechnics of the State.
(e) Diploma in Agricultural and Rural Engineering given by the Rural Institute, Thavanur.
(f) Vocational Higher Secondary
course Certificate in
Draftsmanship and Quantity
Surveying.
(g) Vocational Higher Secondary
Course Certificate in Building Technology."
2. The petitioners are certificate holders in ITC (Civil) and therefore, they are duly qualified. But the petitioners are aggrieved that when the list was published, it contained the names of number of persons, who are having engineering degree and who do not possess the qualification as mentioned in the notification. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this court for directing the respondents to exclude the persons having higher qualifications than that are prescribed in Ext.P1 notification.
3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan and standing counsel for the Public Service Commission Sri.Alexander Thomas. W.P.(C).NO.16255/08
:: 3 ::
4. In my view, the issue is covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Jyothi K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission {JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 85}. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the judgment of a Division Bench of this court reported in Partha Radha & ors. v. State of Kerala {2000(3) ILR Kerala 53}. No doubt, the proposition laid down therein supports the case of the petitioners. But I have to take note of the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court in Jyothi's case is subsequent to the decision of the Division Bench in Partha Radha's case. This court is bound by the law laid down in Jyothi's case.
Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge